Mike Tyson - The Hardest puncher in History

Pablod. Much of what i said was not a repeat. Wilder's level of competition, whether guys knocked unconscious can be a good judge of power, hether power is theoretically measurable..
Others things did bear repeating for context & organizing an overall argument.

But how many blows a Ko can remove memory of is a good point. I do not know how often how many blows are erased.
I also do not think concussions & memory loss are common without KOs. Am open to arguments.

But you keep minimizing how many fighters say Shavers hit hardest. Even though i corrected that. And some fought the other hardest hitter candidates, like Foreman.

You are mking the perfect the enemy of the good.
That we can never know for sure & many factors may complicate the ****ysis...
Does not mean that the vast majority of blows are not remembered. That we can triangulate what goes into KOs, get a GOOD idea of skills & effectiveness vs. power.

Wass you SHOULD stop the malicious name calling
And I agree with much of what you say, & DISAGREE that most of it is a gross over-simplification. But it is wrong, & hurts your case.

Pablod he is far from the only one who agrees with me-not that popular consensus is correlated with being correct. But we are the last to carry the debate to the end of this thread.

Also though you have not been nearly as abusive as him, no need to stoop to contemptuous insults.

By the way, I do not agree that continuing to develop skills means you developed more punching power. It makes you better, not a greater banger.

There is much to be said for watching who hits who how, how well, how often...And estimating force from that.

Let us say the average HW hits like the avergae man's height, 5' 10". While the average man in society would hit like a child, comparably.

Tyson hot mre or less like he was ~ 7' tall.

That is extremely hard, really hard even for Professional HWs.

But clearly a bunch of folks hit harder for individual shots.
Like there are always a few NBA players around who are near or over 7 1/2' tall.

Just BEING 7' tall makes it exponentially, to say the least, more likely you will be in the NBA here in America. Only a few of those are great, Wilt, Shaq, Robinson, Kareem...

Tyson is like them, at his peak. Great skills & a great punch, but the former makes the latter even more effective.

Shavers is more like a giant who has moderate skills & a few glaring flaws-at that level.

Now not you nor anyone has debated my specific argument about power being in part a mystery, not fully quantifiable. Ironically you should embrace it, this is consistent with your CORRECT apprehension that we cannot know for sure (absent well measured scientifically). But in that case, we can still have a pretty good idea.

But folks like Foreman & Liston & Shavers in their primes, average their sizes, clearly not more than the two-teens at BEST. Small compared to most HWs today!

And NOT fast. More towards relatively slow overall.

But almost nobody debates that in terms of Pure Force, they are amongst the hardest hitters ever. Many say that they are at or very near the tippy-top.

It is unusual for any of these guys to NOT at least be in the top 10.

So IF power was merely mass X speed, they would not even hit as hard as AVERAGE modern HWs!!!

And technique cannot add that much, because the one thing most HWs can do is at least maximize their punching power. If they are a stick & mover absent much force, that is another story, but they would not be the Heavy Hitters anyway.

And Marciano...He at least hit very hard as a HW, I assume something like Tyson & with both hands. But he was SMALL & slow. If power OR force was fuly quantifiable, let alone by mass X speed....he would hit like a leeeeettle grrrrl....:blurp


Is any of this this really hard to accept?

 

Yep.
With regards to wilder or any other fighter in the light of the question of harderst puncher ever, we cant know anything on an all time level by looking at ko's vs bums. Please be reasonable. His power at elite level is absolutely unproven.
As ive said, how many times have you seen a fighters 'power' miraculously disappear when they enter the top 10?
If you cant deliver it, you aint got it. but ill never convince you of that.
Re your comments on concussion.
In my earlier post I said that a fighter may not be the best judge on the merits of a shot which has knocked him out.
I also said that whether a fighter is concussed or not, 2 or 3 testimonies from people with god knows what motivation are too sketchy a method, evidence wise, to build your case on. At least to me.
Plus can anyone actually verify a source for these supposed testimonies?
But don't fixate on this please, as even if you could somehow prove that the testimonies are real and unbiased and somehow unaffected by sledgehammer blows from all time great hitters, they still represent only a tiny part of the overall picture.
Nowhere near enough meat to build a case on.

quote: - 'So IF power was merely mass X speed, they would not even hit as hard as AVERAGE modern HWs!!!'

I have to keep correcting you that force, not power = mass x acceleration.
Power, as I seem to have to keep saying is only the name we use for the end result.
I always think that deliberately misunderstanding something so you can fit it to your needs is a bit dishonest.
You yourself said that a standard of absolute force its unmeasurable in the contest so please stop trying to measure it, it makes the discussions circular.
Every human has there own way of throwing their bodyweight at
their opponent to generate the most force possible.
The argument that foreman and shavers were slow so therefore shouldn't have been able to generate as much force which can only mean that Isaac newton was full of it, is some of the worst reasoning ive ever heard.
Foreman and shavers were not slow.
That's just inaccurate.
The shots I saw were blazing haymakers, crackling the air as they flew. Turned in with great personal technique to accelerate and snap on the end.
By the average humans standards they were like lightning. But we call them slow once weve seen light hitters with faster hands or the speed of a heavy fast puncher like tyson for example.
Imagine trying to return a power serve from a mid level tennis pro. Comparatively slow in the grand scheme of things, but still frighteningly fast. Far too fast for most.
You don't hit holmes and ali flush on the chin with your best shots with no skills and poor handspeed. Again, be reasonable.
Even at age 44, the right hand which kayoed moorer was too fast and short for moorer to see.

 

I will be as always systematic here. Pablod, your vdefault modeis becoming "please be reasonable". that does not add to the discussion, especially when you can differ, but not show outrageous statements. Also sometimes YOU assume things not in evidence, like bad intentions or mistake what i say.
That is not just arguably mistaken, but demonstrably wrong.

1) You were incorrect & incautious re: what i said about Wilder.
You argued a Straw Man. My statement clearly referred to a few thngs that were not repeats. Including about the level of Wilder's competition, which i stated was lower than Tysons *& most other at all serious contenders) through his 1st 32 fights.

2) I was not arguing about his power there or how much fighting those guys established his power. I happen to agree that his power is unproven at the top level.

3) If you cannot deliver EFFECTIVE power you do not have effective power. It does not change how hard you hit. if you can deliver the punches, even if partially blocked, if low volume, if seen & rolled with, if not that accurate...You HAVE power.

This is a definitional matter. We basically agree on what is most important for a fighter. But the literal definition of having power is still how much force you can hit something with.
That you want power to mean effective power is obvious.
But it is not accurate, by the meaning of the words involved, by teh dictionary.
You want what is important to be what is the facts. They are not the same.

4) I know what you said. But you have repeated "2 or 3 times MORE times than i accidentally used the wrong word, power, not force. I used them both in my final reference actually After I corrected you repeatedly & said it was a lot more than that who testified about Shavers. Should I accuse YOU of being intellectually dihonest? No, that would not be reasonable.
though you may be resistant to acknowledging details that hurt your case, that psychology does not mean you are consciously deceptive.

5) As you implied with "too skepthy at least for me", your stanrad of what evidence from whom you accept is certainly questionable. besides being more than 2 or 3 guys for most ANY of the hardest hitters, you say "God knows what motivation".
Well it is only sensible to try to suss that out. It is not at all inviolate 100% sure we know, but just as silly to feel we cannot often have a good idea. And when the consensus is overwhelming-& often CONTRADICTS what might be in the best interest of a fighter to claim, ego or legacy-wise...
We have a good case.

6) Since you ask about sources but immediately dismiss the importance, it is not worthwhile to show them to you.
Though you can find most yourself.
No, they do not represent just a "tiny" part of the picture. That statement is unsupported & contradicts common sense.
Also viewing the bouts & triangulating effectiveness with force & opponent is veluable.
Please do not suggest that because we cannot know with scientific certitude it invalidates what few would claim is ironclad.
More like a Civil Court standard, delivering the "propenderance of the evidence".

7) I have shown that power is so often shown in the end results.
But the end results are MUCH more than pure power. Sped, volume, accuracy, combinations, other skills, endurance & defense to survive to deliver it, etc.

8) I said that absent anaccurate machine we cannot measure the force. But it is not reasonable to ask me or anyone not to "measure" it-in the general sense of have a pretty or very good idea of it-through various logical, observational, & first hand accounts. Isolating it from effectiveness. They are often correlated, but very different too. You used a definition of "neasure" that is narrow, when I did not do that at all. Though your words suggested I used the same narrow definition.


9) Should I assume YOU are being dishonest? Nah, again assuming the worst when simply not seeing things the same way, having a bias towards your own argument, is the most LIKELY reason.
Modeling good faith debate techniques & what the evidence establishes here. one should not assume the harshest & most cynical conclusions absent establishing them as most likely the motivations involved.

10) Worst reasoning you ever HEARD?
I am almost certain this is an emotional exxageration...Not that you are a liar though..

11) It is just wrong to think that what i claim ineluctably indicates that i am saying newton was "full of it". Either mistaken, or when that phrase is used, indicated generally that they were dishonest.
Of course the formula is completely correct.
Your very rigid interpretation of what I must BELIEVE defies logic.

12) Other things are involved in the force created for a punch.
You recognize what i mentioned, technique.
The same speed & mass will NOT deliver the same force abent technique that not only uses the mass effectively, but has other aspects like the "snap" involved.

12 A) You can say they all TRANSLATE to force. fair enough.
But i say that if we just ADD UP all of these things, we cannot yet account for enough causes FOR that force. Or in other words, power-not effective, what i am referring to...is still a bit of a mystery.

13) You have a GOOD POINT about the relative speeds of guys like Foreman & Shavers. That they were slow compared to lighter guys. "crackling the air" is merely poetical.

13 A) Yet...I said they were fairly slow FOR HWs. Actually Foreman & Liston often were, Shavers maybe faster...
BUt Foreman could have a fairly fast jab, but his hardest shots were long "slow" looping shots. Those were not like "lightning" compared to even an average guy.

14) You are singing my own song when you say how fast/hard the punches or tennis shots are compared to an average man. I went into detail about this when comparing, say, an average pro HW ato an average man's height, & that avergae MAn was more like achild's height.
Did you not notice that io already covered this, so no need to prove it to me? You must have just MISSED it, I really doubt you were at all dishonest there. Modeling appropriate & logical assumptions here.

15) Your reference to those who hit Holmes & Ali with huge & effective shots...No skills & porr handpeed?! No, just not great skills & handspeed FOR A TOP HW. As i already said.
But a Shavers could not do it very often, or accurately enough to finish them off. Maybe if he did not hesitate against a faded Ali, as he regretted.

16) Foreman was 45 vs. Moorer. He fough to 48 vs. Briggs.
But that is trivial. I submit that his KO shot was absolutely not "too fast to see". It was RELATIVELY slow. BUT Moorer was careless, Teddy Atlas was screaming at him not 10 seconds before "don't stand in front of him", & he had less time to react to a short punch.

Still, compute mass & speed & it is clear that like a pucthed or batted ball, even considering all techniques involved, it is somewhat of a mystery why a fair umber defy what you would predict they could do.

 

its actually been fun debating with you and I appreciate your coolness in it all. and I think its fair to say weve both mis understood each other at times which is always going to happen with the written word.
youre right when you say we all know whats important, we use the whole picture. but to convince me that A hits harder than B, well, lets just say we like different standards of evidence.

 

Joe Louis hit harder than Mike Tyson....the difference is small, but Louis and tyson lead the way as the hardest hitters ever amongst the heavyweights....PP you still have Julian Jackson and Danny Lopez.

 

Same here Pablod! You know, sometimes we get used to least common denominator expectations of the level of debate, especially when there are anger management junkies & trolls around. Though many are good in private life, yet conditioned like lab reflex monkeys to respond in jaded & contemtuous ways.

You pretty much entirely buch that trend. An independent thinker.
Just don't let others less evolved bring you in any sense down...

That you do not get your ego threatened by Rain-Man like granular looks at academic issues is impressive. :thumbsup

Red Cobra, Louis & Tyson hit very hard indeed, but not the hardest ever, not even in their eras....amongst & arguably the most EFFECTIVE combo punchers, great speed of hand...

I wonder WHY Louis lost the pwer in his right hand by 37?
usually power is the LAST to go. And he had put on weight & seeming strength...
Rocky said it was "nothing". another said it was 30% of what it was...he was still a top level boxer, though not nearly what he was, but why was his power so dessicated?

 

Joe himself said he could no longer throw his right reflexively, that he had to think to throw it during his comeback. Certainly he dropped Savold for the count with a single hook, and had been conditioned from the beginning to start everything with his jab, subscribing to the orthodoxy that at least 80 percent or more of the right's function is for defensive purposes. Disuse is part of the issue here. Whether or not there was otherwise some never revealed physical impairment to his right is another question.

However, when you look at the old Bomber's exhibition knockout of Pat Valentino, all the damage is done with his right. Louis also used his right to close the left eye of Charles, to the potency was definitely still in his right for those events.

 

At least Botha isn't a hysterical ****loaded coward like you.
How pathetic this monitorhead can believe he knows the
boxing better than Botha.
Try to ask Botha about his opinion and don't cry here like
a ***** !
I hate these crying guys without *****.

 

Come say that to my face and I'll spank your ass like your mommy used to.

Botha is a bull****ter just like Tillis and Holmes.

 

I think Shavers had harder single shot power than Tyson. I think Tillis would know. He fought both guys. He got put on his face by Shavers and barely beat the count, whereas Tyson didn't seem to really hurt him. Tyson was a much better fighter then Shavers of course. Tyson could hurt a guy, then follow up quickly with hard punches and take a guy out. Earnie could pole ax a guy with one punch, but if the guy got up, Earnie had a hard time following up. See the second Holmes fight and the Tillis fight for examples of this.

 

- And seemingly nobody mentions Tucker/Green/Smith were
incredible ripped muscular fighters against Tyson.
(These fighters were much more athletic than every Lewis opponent.)
I don't know similar athletic fighters nowadays (including w. klitschko). These fighters had great chin and athletic talent( including incredible stamina) they were 100% ideal for a fight without ko loss.
- The Lennox version Tucker was a fat,slow maybe drug problematic, slow loser.
- Tyson destroyed Ruddock's punching resistance.
The **** glass-chinned Phil Jackson went much more rounds with Lewis this proves this.

 

A guy sitting at home on the keyboard, calling former pro boxers bull****ters (because they don't meet his agenda). atsch